I think the author got confused, it's not despite off it's because of.
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
845 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
58895 readers
3551 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Trickle down economics - when the 1% tinkle on the remainder.
Trickle down was a rebrand.
It used to be called "Horse and Sparrow economics."
Idea being: The horses eat buckets of whole grains. And the sparrows pick their meal from the horseshit.
Never heard that. Regardless, i love it.
Go Copilot!
He's doing what the Board wants, stock price is up. If there was a worker advocate on the board, maybe things would be different.
stock is regularly at a new all time high with $400++/share.
In case you missed it, in our broken model of civilization a CEO's only responsibility is to increase value for shareholders. Not to clients, not to employees, not to the biosphere.
Market cap increased, job's done successfully.
A) 1971, Economist Milton Friedman explicitly told the world the "only social responsibility" for businesses is to increase shareholder value. The Business Roundtable heartily endorsed this view, setting the stage for the next half century of villains to gleefully enrich themselves without compunction.
B) 2019, Business Roundtable reversed their 50 year position to include that businesses should be beholden to all Stakeholders, not just shareholders.
But of course the damage has been done, and continues onward. To compound this, the FED's open-purse monetary policy for 14 YEARS ushered in the worst inflation in 40 years, while wages have stagnated for 4 decades, kicking off around the time Baby Boomers were birthing the first Millennial children.
These are just some of the reasons Millennials lay the bulk of culpability at the feet of Baby Boomers, who of course respond with something like: "Well, I don't remember that."
CEOs gonna CEO.
Because of layoffs, not despite them.
When I entered the work force in 2005, it was with a company that had never had a layoff in its thirty-year history.
Then, in 2009, they had their first layoff, and I learned later our CEO had taken an 80% pay raise that year.
Taxes aren't theft. Literally firing people and taking their salaries is theft.
Also that CEO has an eminently punchable face.
tautological
load more comments
(11 replies)
The entire point of AI as it stands right now is to allow more of those layoffs. Anyone telling otherwise is a liar.
Also I hate how currently, AI is used to remove the fun parts of creating things at a computer. Take coding for example, I think I can speak for many people when I say that the fun part of their job, is not the planning or the meetings, it's the actual coding and stumbling upon a hard problem to solve. Now with AI you the human will only keep the boring parts of the job!
Don't overestimate LLMs, it can't code and never will be. It can create templates convincingly enough and do boilerplate parts that are nonsense only sometimes, but those aren't the fun parts of the coding process anyway. In my experience, LLM isn't helping at all and I spend more time fixing it's nonsense than I would do if I don't use it at all, so I don't
As someone without a computer science background and who started learning Python for data science shortly before LLMs became mainstream, I gotta say it's been pretty useful for the learning process. I don't mean I just use it to write scripts for me but rather it can be a useful sorta of guide the way a scripted advisor mihht be in a game. Seems to me that one of the good sides of LLMs is that they can make technically dofficult fields more accessible as long as you understand its limits and know what it can and cant do._ i would never use it for any sort of subjective issue but I find it great for logical tasks. And this is not to say that's its perfect for that either but it has increased my efficiency for certain work tasks tremendously.
As someone with degrees and decades of experience, I urge you not use it for that. It's a cleverly disguised randomness machine, it will give you incorrect information that will be indistinguishable from truth because "truth" is never the criteria that it can use, but be convincing is. It will seed those untruths into you and unlearning bad practices that you picked up at the beginning might take years and cost you a career. And since you're just starting, you have no idea how to pick up bullshit from truth as long as the final result seem to work, and that's the works way to hide the bullshit from you.
The field is already very accessible for everyone who wants to learn it, the amount of guides, examples, teaching courses, very useful youtube videos with thick Indian accent is already enormous, and most of them are at least trying to self-correct, while LLM actively doesn't, in fact it's trying to do the opposite.
Best case scenario you're learning inefficiently, worst case scenario you aren't learning at all
Thank you, I will take this into consideration. It sure is tempting to use LLMs but I will always trust experts in the field over LLMs.
Yeah, the scary thing about LLMs is that by their very nature they sound convincing and it's very easy to fall into a trap, we as humans are hardwired to misconstrue the ability to talk smoothly for intelligence, and when computer started to speak with complete sentences and hold the immediate context of a conversation, we immediately started to think that we have a thinking machine and started believing it.
The worst thing is, there are legit uses for all the machine learning stuff and LLMs in particular, so we can't just throw it all out of the window, we will have to collectively adapt to this very convincing randomness machine that is just here all the time
Exactly how I am feeling. AI took the fun part away of cracking a problem and the satisfaction of solving it is now gone.
They should be paying 90% tax over 1 million.
Typical and most people in the US view CEO's as heroes. US income distribution is on the same level as fucking Russia.
As someone from fucking Russia, people with biggest income in your country are usually first businessmen, second - something else, while in Russia those would be cockroaches from MFA, PA and other thieves, plus a few oligarchs who at some point were among those cockroaches.
So it may not be as bad yet, but frankly yes, you are giving out vibes of going in the same direction.
He made $12000 off each fired employee.
Per year. And lets not talk about his stock options and other benefits... Fucking disgusting.
Thank god, all these employees lost their jobs so Satya Nadella can pad out their already insanely high salary.
We don't want Satya to starve like the rest us of plebs!
This is the shit we need to be thinking about when we read about a black person getting shot by a cop for stealing a loaf of bread, if you ask me.
Pretty standard issue corporate psychopath.
That’s roughly 30k for every employee laid off
My math says roughly $12k
79,000,000 / 2,550 = 30,980
The increase is only 30 mill
Gotcha, sounds like we’re measuring two different things then
Yeah. He was already making 49, I was looking at how much of the redistribution went to him, not much, but I imagine it'll go to stock buybacks or AI electricity
Yeah maybe to their three mile island project. What a weird sentence. Just a few years off from our Weyland Yutani future
So the CEO gets less than half their salary for the year?
Sounds like a great deal for the company. Until, you know, the whole thing collapses because they laid off the workers who kept the whole thing running
load more comments
(4 replies)
“Look timmy, it’s a man made entirely of bullshit”
The board doesn’t care about the number of people employed. They care about the current profitability and future profitability.
Of course that’s their job; to look after shareholder interests. And the money would move to a better investment if they didn’t.
It’s the whole system you need to change, if you seek change, not moan about an individual CEO.
I don't see how paying him so much is actually increasing dividends though.
Pay him half as much or find someone else who will do it for half as much
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›